Re: Why Jam?

From: braden_mcdaniel (braden_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-20 17:32:29

--- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., "braden_mcdaniel" <braden_at_e...> wrote:
> > Maybe later, but not now. I'm not really using Boost yet, though I
> > anticipate doing so in the future. A requirement for me is that my
> > users are able to obtain dependencies for my package easily, and
> > install those dependencies without having to do things like set
> > environment variables, install obscure build tools, or do anything
> > else out of the ordinary. A person compiling my package may not be 
> an
> > experienced software developer.
> 
> automake+autoconf fails some of your criteria unless the platform is 
> restricted to POSIX platforms.  On the other hand, work is being done 
> to make all of the above true for Jam.

I have little hope of my criteria being met on non-POSIX platforms;
such platforms tend not to be so developer-friendly and not as
interested in portability with other platforms. Perhaps the work on
Jam you speak of offers a ray of hope; but I remain skeptical.

I can see replacing make and automake with Jam; replacing autoconf is
a task of a very different magnitude. A lot of folks have tried to
replace autoconf with something "better", and no one's really
succeeded. While I can't believe that autoconf is the best possible
tool for its role, it does suck less than the alternatives.

> > So when the time comes, I'll have to see where Boost is and evaluate
> > my options:
> > 
> >  * Add an install target to the Jam build system.
> 
> This one is already being discussed and worked on.

On this list or elsewhere? (I don't remember seeing such a discussion
here, but I could have missed it. I'm not able to read every message
to this list.)

In any event, that's very good to hear. A sane install target would go
a long way toward alleviating issues with making Boost easily deployable.

Braden